UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2005 > May > May 5

Re: The Engineered Moon - Fleming

From: Lan Fleming <lfleming6.nul>
Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 08:19:07 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 05 May 2005 10:02:22 -0400
Subject: Re: The Engineered Moon - Fleming

>From: James Smith <zeus001002.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 13:40:56 -0400 (GMT-04:00)
>Subject: Re: The Engineered Moon


>However, it is not clear to me how you can infer "peer pressure,
>group think, and herd mentality" caused Mr. Freeman to revisit
>his paper after 20 years. Consider that the truest, most
>powerful time of peer pressure is prior to any paper being
>written. In fact, he might have been trying to find enough data
>to confirm his previous results so as to get recognition and
>more funding!! Because he wrote two initial papers about 1 year
>apart, I am inclined to believe NO peer pressure existed to
>remove the "anomaly" of water on the Moon.

Peer pressure isn't necessarily angry phone calls from
university department heads threatening funding cuts. It can be
years of enduring thinly veiled hostility and snide remarks from
"colleagues" at scientific conferences. That was Gil Levin's
experience. Levin has written that he was treated like a "non-
person" (his own words) for years because he refused to renounce
his opinion that his Viking Labeled Release experiment
discovered life on Mars. _That_ is peer pressure. Levin never
caved, but some people do. I don't necessarily blame them.


>>The 1972 paper from the Lunar Science Conference Procedings said
>>that the mass analyzer at the Apollo 12 site was too noisy. But
>>there was a _second_ instrument called the TotalIon Detector
>>(TID) that apparently was working OK at the Apollo 12 site. The
>>TID can't distinguish between types of ions, like the MA can,
>>but the readings at the Apollo 12 site correlated well with the
>>TID at the Apollo 14 site.

>Yes, I know and stated this. You need to ask him why he omitted
>the Apollo 12 data in the 1991 paper. I doubt it was due to peer
>pressure. There is likely a good rationale.

Freeman considered the readings from the Apollo 12 site to be
important enough to mention in the abstract of the original
paper.  Peer pressure or not, there is no good excuse for simply
dropping something without explanation that was important enough
to be included in the abstract and then referred to throughout
the paper.

[ Next Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp

Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com